Unsuspected Extracolonic Findings at Screening CT Colonography: Clinical and Economic Impact1

Purpose: To evaluate the frequency and estimated costs of additional diagnostic workup for extracolonic findings detected at computed tomographic (CT) colonography in a large screening cohort.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study, which had institutional review board approval, evaluated extracolonic findings in 2195 consecutive asymptomatic adults (1199 women, 996 men; age range, 40–90 years; mean age, 58.0 years ± 8.1 [standard deviation]) undergoing low-dose CT colonographic screening performed without contrast material at a single institution over a 20-month period. All diagnostic workups generated because of extracolonic findings were reviewed. Associated costs were estimated by using 2006 Medicare average reimbursement. Testing for statistical significance was performed by using the χ2 and t tests.

Results: Further diagnostic workup for unsuspected extracolonic findings was performed in 133 (6.1%) of 2195 patients, including 18 patients in whom additional workup was not recommended by the radiologist. Additional testing included ultrasonography (n = 64), CT (n = 59), magnetic resonance imaging (n = 11), other diagnostic imaging tests (n = 19), nonsurgical invasive procedures (n = 19), and surgical procedures (n = 22). Benign findings were confirmed in the majority of cases, but relevant new diagnoses were made in 55 (2.5%) patients, including extracolonic malignancies in nine patients. The mean cost per patient for nonsurgical procedures was $31.02 (95% confidence interval: $23.72, $38.94); that for surgical procedures was $67.54 (95% confidence interval: $38.62, $101.55).

Conclusion: Detection of relevant unsuspected extracolonic disease at CT colonographic screening is not rare, accounting for a relatively large percentage of cases in which additional workup was recommended. Judicious handling of potential extracolonic findings is warranted to balance the cost of additional workup against the potential for early detection of important disease, because many findings will prove to be of no clinical consequence.

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/249/1/151/DC1

© RSNA, 2008


  • 1 Hara AK, Johnson CD, MacCarty RL, Welch TJ. Incidental extracolonic findings at CT colonography. Radiology 2000; 215: 353–357. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Edwards JT, Wood CJ, Mendelson RM, Forbes GM. Extracolonic findings at virtual colonoscopy: implications for screening programs. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 3009–3012. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Wilson LA, et al. Extracolonic findings at CT colonography: evaluation of prevalence and cost in a screening population. Gastroenterology 2003; 124: 911–916. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hellström M, Svensson MH, Lasson A. Extracolonic and incidental findings on CT colonography (virtual colonoscopy). AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 182: 631–638. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Xiong T, McEvoy K, Morton DG, Halligan S, Lilford RJ. Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonography: a study in a symptomatic population. Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 948–961. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khan KY, Xiong T, McCafferty I, et al. Frequency and impact of extracolonic findings detected at computed tomographic colonography in a symptomatic population. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 355–361. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tolan DJ, Armstrong EM, Chapman AH. Replacing barium enema with CT colonography in patients older than 70 years: the importance of detecting extracolonic abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 1104–1111. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yee J, Kumar NN, Godara S, et al. Extracolonic abnormalities discovered incidentally at CT colonography in a male population. Radiology 2005; 236: 519–526. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chin M, Mendelson R, Edwards J, Foster N, Forbes G. Computed tomographic colonography: prevalence, nature, and clinical significance of extracolonic findings in a community screening program. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 2771–2776. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. CT virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2191–2200. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Kim DH, Reichelderfer M, Gopal DV, Pfau PR. Screening for colorectal neoplasia with CT colonography: initial experience from the first year of coverage by third-party payers. Radiology 2006; 241: 417–425. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ. Extracolonic findings identified in asymptomatic adults at screening CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 718–728. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology 2005; 236: 3–9. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Luce BR, Manning WG, Siegel JE, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2006. Google Scholar
  • 15 Medicare program; revisions to payment policies under the physician fee schedule for calendar year 2006 and certain provisions related to the competitive acquisition program of outpatient drugs and biologicals under part B, 70 Federal Register 70116 (2005) (codified at 42 CFR §405 et seq). Google Scholar
  • 16 Medicare 2006 OPPS Final Rule Claims Accounting. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/hospitaloutpatientpps/downloads/cms-1501-fc_claimsaccounting.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2007. Google Scholar
  • 17 Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2006 rates, 70 Federal Register 47278 (2005) (codified at 42 CFR §405 et seq). Google Scholar
  • 18 Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1403–1141. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, et al. Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 2005; 237: 385–394. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, et al. CT colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med 2008; 168: 696–705. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Laghi A, Zullo A, Kim DH, Morini S. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: the impact of not reporting diminutive lesions. Cancer 2007; 109: 2213–2221. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ropers D, Baum U, Pohle K, et al. Detection of coronary artery stenoses with thin-slice multi-detector row spiral computed tomography and multiplanar reconstruction. Circulation 2003; 107: 664–666. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Horton KM, Post WS, Blumenthal RS, Fishman EK. Prevalence of significant noncardiac findings on electron-beam computed tomography coronary artery calcium screening examinations. Circulation 2002; 106: 532–534. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Onuma Y, Tanabe K, Nakazawa G, et al. Noncardiac findings in cardiac imaging with multidetector computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 402–406. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2008